12 Groups file on first day allowed
Environmental Groups Sue to Reverse Wolf Delisting
By Peter Metcalf, 4-28-08
A wolf in Wyoming, unknown location. Photo courtesy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
As expected, a coalition of 12 environmental and animal-rights groups filed suit today in U.S. District Court in Missoula, Mont. seeking to overturn the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s decision to remove gray wolves in the Northern Rockies from protection under the Endangered Species Act.
The lawsuit seeks a immediate injunction to protect gray wolves from public hunting and aims to return the wolf to federal management under the Endangered Species Act. Gray wolves were officially delisted on March 28th.
“We’re trying to prevent the wolf slaughter from going forward,” said Doug Honnold, managing attorney of the Bozeman office of Earthjustice, the legal organization representing the coalition.
The groups argue state management plans fail to provide adequate protection for the species, especially against indiscriminate public hunting. Instead of protection, state management actually promotes the killing of wolves, Honnold said.
As evidence, the coalition points to Wyoming law that classifies wolves as predators that can be shot on sight year round in most of the state and an Idaho law that allows people to shoot wolves just for “worrying” livestock or domestic animals.
According the Associated Press, at least 37 wolves have been killed in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming since the states assumed full management responsibilities a month ago. The bulk of these deaths resulted from public hunting in Wyoming’s predator zone.
The groups argue this is just the beginning of states’ attempts to reduce current wolf populations by about 80 percent to the federal minimum of 300 wolves. More than 1,500 wolves currently roam the tri-state region.
State and federal officials maintain that the initial rate of killing will subside as wolves adapt to public hunting and that state management plans provide adequate protection and sound management that will maintain wolf populations between 900–1,250 animals, more than enough to ensure their long term survival.
The lawsuit also argues present wolf numbers are too low and the populations in greater Yellowstone, Idaho and Montana too isolated from one another to meet the biological criteria for a recovered species. Wolf advocates contend 2,000–3,000 wolves are necessary to ensure the species’ long term survival and genetic viability.
The filing came as expected on the first day the coalition could legally file suit. By law, legal challenges relating to the ESA require a 60-day notification of intent to sue. The coalition filed its intent on February 28th, the day federal officials announced their intention to remove the gray wolf from the endangered species list. The federal government has ten days to file a response.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Add your comment below
Why does management equate to a hunting season? And reducing a species by 80% is not an intelligent response by any means. 300 of anything is not a healthy population.
How about managing the way we (ranchers) live so we can coexist.
No one seems to really consider how hunting will influence pack dynamics. If an alpha wolf is killed, the pack falls apart and that is when wolves get into trouble with things like livestock. Hunting just creates more problems.
Unless of course we kill all the wolves. Problem solved, right?
The states need to take an ecological perspective on wolves instead of a political one.
I howerver prefer to live as a FREE AMERICAN CITIZEN.
The government already has too much control over our lives. Move to Venezuela if you need the government to tell you how to live.
It is as if these officials want just enough wolves to keep a population in the Lamar Valley because it brings in money. As usual...economy trumps ecology.
It all seems a bit crazy.
Do you mean the "environmental group" called the US Fish and WILDLIFE Service???
Minnesota, which raises about one million more head of cattle per annum than Wyoming BTW, has close to three thousand wolves. They currently have a five year moratorium on hunting wolves to insure a stable population and 1,600 is considered to be the absolute minimum to keep wolves from being returned to the ESL. Minnesota has 79,617 square miles (one wolf per every 26 square miles (about)). Total square miles for Idaho, Montana and Wyoming is @325,442 square miles or about one wolf per 216 square miles. Regarding habitat, Minnesota has about 816,000 acres of designated wilderness, whereas the Northern Rockies have over 10 and a half million such acres. Regarding human conflicts, Minnesota has over 2 million more people than the entire Northern Rockies.
Wolves are persecuted in Canada as well. They are shot from the air, poisoned, hunted, trapped.
Prognosticators prior to re-introduction predicted that elk would be gone from the Northern Rockies in ten years. Elk are thriving. Prognosticators predicted that a child would be killed within a year by wolves. Hasn't happened. Prognosticators predicted massive livestock killings. Livestock predation has been lower (per wolf) than predicted.
Some wolves will always get into trouble, just as some bears will, some mountain lions will, some coyotes will. The majority will not. Some will need to be controlled. The majority will not.
Many years ago the Montana Supreme Court ruled that landowners in Montana have to put up with some predation (unlike a state like New Mexico where a rancher recently shot an entire herd of elk for eating his hay). It is part of the price we pay to live in this beautiful, wildlife rich, country. If I want to keep my neighbor's cows out of my garden, I am required to put up a fence...that's the law. If my neighbor wants to keep MY wildlife off of his property HE should be required to put up a fence capable of doing that.
It is clear that the biggest wolf "problem" is a human problem. It is a problem of attitudes. Nineteenth century attitudes. Until they change, wolves are going to need some sort of protection.
Many say that wolves should not have been re-introduced; but the fact is that they were on the way anyway. They were already in Northern Idaho and about a third of the way down western Montana. By now there is little doubt that they would have been in Yellowstone, much of Idaho and beginning to appear in Wyoming; all protected 100 percent by the full weight and power of the ESA, not the 10j. Perhaps those people were right. Wolves, after all, do not need a passport.
A failure of unimaginable proportions is bound up in the the willful blindness, hysterical deafness and elective mutism of so many opinion leaders, economic powerbrokers, politicians and business tycoons who do not speak out openly, loudly and clearly about the world we inhabit as bounded and limited in space with finite resources. Their idolatry of the endless expansion of the global political economy is not only selfish, arrogant and unrealistic; they are also perversely choosing to espouse a "primrose path" of unbridled economic globalization to our children, a path to the future that a relatively small planet with the size and make-up of Earth cannot possibly sustain much longer, much less to the year 2050.
At least to me, this failure by my not-so-great generation of leading elders is a "sin of omission" that is tantamount to a passive criminal act against the family of humanity, life as we know it and the Earth God blesses us to inhabit....and not ruin, I suppose.
Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population,
established 2001
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/index.php
We are not overrun by wolves. We are overrrun by cattle and other invasive, non-native species.
USFWS has trapped and killed more wolves than all the lead-slingers combined. Ed Bangs must have the Guiness World Record by now, and for eternity. Nothing will change the pattern of senseless killing of wildlife in the Northern Rockies (or humans in Iraq, Afganistan, Iran?, Columbia, Texas, and elsewhere) until January 2009. It's just who they are and what they do.
Because of wolves, the elk herds are a lot healthier than in the 90's when they were significantly overpopulated. Elk aren't disappearing, they have just changed the foraging patterns because they realize that they are no longer on top of the food chain. They are prey now.
Hunters need to learn to adapt to that as well.
Because elk are being hunted, they are avoiding riparian areas and other places with poor escapability. So, for the first time in half a century, Yellowstone has its first new Aspen growth.
Wolves are having all kinds of positive effects on the greater Yellowstone ecosystem. They are a "keystone species" that has been missing since they were eradicated in the early 20th century.
This land was home to wolves before it was home to cattle.
Maybe you can get them transplanted to yellowstone.
Mick, If you don't like the backwoods redneck morons who govern your state, vote them out.
As for plenty of moving targets, my wife has shot one deer in the last six years. I haven't been lucky enough to see a buck to shoot. Drought and severe winters have kept the herd at seriously low levels. Where have you been hunting? I would like to go there and see these artificially high deer.
It is important that we don't let the government officials undermine hard work by allowing the delisting and hunting of wolves when populations are obviously not ready for this type of action. Remember, it has only been 13 years since the reintroduction. That is a very short period of time on the biological time scale.
Then along came Bill Clinton. Bruce Babbitt. Mollie Beattie. Jamie Clark (she might be back). A bunch of wolves came soon after, along with promises of a delisting at 30 packs/10 a state or thereabouts. If you argued about that being too much, you were branded a kook. So, five times that many animals are on the ground, and the eco-niks want to double that, but that's only rhetorical. Once THAT magic number is hit, will the lawsuits end? Heck no. Multiple times burnt, forever shy. Keep doing this and pretty soon people won't care what the law is or the judge says any more.
Reducing hunting will eventually reduce support for hunting and after a generation or two the few who do want to hunt will be easy to demonize and label as kooks! Brilliant!!!
To all of the hunters/killers/murderers who read this for every one of you there are 1,000 people ready to send money to support our cause. There’s nothing you can do!!! HA! HA!
Save the forests! Let’s use cowboy hats instead of toilet paper!!! HA! HA!
For the last time (yeah, right!), there was never a maximum number of wolves agreed to. Only a MINIMUM number at which delisting could be considered. Normally, when an animal comes off of the list, the state then manages for an INCREASING (not decreasing) population. This is the intent of the ESA, whether it's bald eagles, manatees, desert tortoises or gray wolves. In the case of gray wolves, it was the state of Wyoming's refusal to come up with a management plan, based on science, that insured the long time survival and ability to disperse into more of its historical range, that held up delisting until a wildlife-unfriendly interior secretary was in place. At that time the intent and purpose of the ESA was violated, and hopefully, the courts will now recognize that.
The ESA was passed in a bi-partisan effort and signed into law by Richard M. Nixon....hardly a bunch of "eco-niks". Gray wolves were among the first species listed, and they were listed as endangered everywhere in the continental US, except Minnesota, below the Canadian border. Given that criteria, they can hardly be considered "recovered" because 12-15 hundred now live in the Northern Rockies.
Steve K.: Amen to that!
I'm not sure if you are being an idiot just to anger the anit-wolf crowd, or if you really hate hunters. I am a hunter and I support wolf reintroduction and the ESA. I have had a very difficult time convincing my fellow hunters that not all enviros are out to get us and are anti-hunting, and the truth is that many environmentalists I have talked too realize hunting plays an important role in proper wildlife manangement when combined with science and ethics. This thread is supposed to be about wolves and not hunting, so I will try to avoid starting a debate over the latter, but let me say that when you make kooky posts like the one above, you drive hunters away who might otherwise agree with you on some issues. And the truth is that the majority in this country are not anti-hunting, and hunting will never be banned. In Africa, we have seen that countries that ban hunting have decreased wildlife populations (Kenya) will those those that allow hunting are much healthier (Namibia, Botswana) and have complete and functional ecosystems including carnivores.
I don't know how to interpret what you posted. I am a hunter and I am opposed to killing anything that I won't eat; I am also in favor of wolf reintroduction/protection. Hence, my post. Keep it real, not weird and out in left field, there are too many wolf-haters there already.
First of all I didn’t mean to upset you so much. Although, I’m not auditioning for an invitation to the Manson family Christmas so save your little song and dance about driving hunters (murderers) away from my point of view. Hunters (murderers) didn’t get to vote the wolves into Montana and they don’t get to vote them out. They are irrelevant and that was my point all along.
Yes hunting (murdering) plays a role in wildlife management but that’s what we have the wolves for. They’re going to do a much better job of weeding out those that need to be culled from the herd than drunk redneck idiots with guns (I don’t even know how to address the science and ethics part so I’ll leave it alone). The truth is that the majority of this country is anti-hunting (anti-murdering) but it’s too popular to steamroll it out of existence. We’re fixing that.
Once the game numbers are down the number of permits will go down and eventually you may only get to hunt (murder) every few years. You’ll take up golf, fishing (another thing that’s got to go) drinking beer and getting fat. Maybe you’ll stop hunting (murdering) altogether (you’re probably a Christian so this will leave you more time to pray for your soul for all of the innocent creatures you’ve tortured and killed in the past)…be good for you. Maybe your children will occasionally get to hunt (murder) but we’re going to see to it that your grandchildren don’t and because hunting (murdering) seems foreign to them, the common sense view that getting off on killing and torturing animals is horrible and should be banned will make sense to them and HUNTING (MURDERING) WILL BE BANNED.
Also I find it hard to believe that murdering animals in Africa has yielded more animals. If you have 5 giraffes and you kill 3 that…hmmm…5 – 3 = >5????
MT:
I applaud your conviction not to kill anything that you won’t eat. Jeffry Dahmer felt the same way and we both know he was a man of conviction. Also congratulations on being in favor of wolf reintroduction, I was wondering how you happen to feel about the sun coming up tomorrow?
The number of wolf haters out there is irrelevant. Virtually every one of them is a hunter (murderer) or a rancher (another irrelevant group whose time has past) and both of these are easily vilified and have indefensible positions. Hunters (murderers) have no ground to stand on. They are people who “get-off” on hurting and killing innocent animals and only want the wolves exterminated so that they can kill more. Ranchers are making a living off of destroying our wild places but until we can evict them paying them for the few cows or sheep that the wolves kill seems to be working well enough.
If you think I’m rude you’re right. I don’t happen to care what redneck morons think. I’m not going to let these guys rain on my parade. I’m celebrating what’s happening and what’s going to happen. All of the wheels are in motion and the time has come. We’re going to get our injunction to stop the states from driving the wolves back to extinction. WE’RE GOING TO HAVE OVER 5,000 WOLVES IN THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS IN THE NEXT 10 YEARS.
IT’S GOING TO HAPPEN. IT’S GOING TO HAPPEN. IT’S GOING TO HAPPEN.
Sorry murderers but you’re time is almost up. Oh well, there’s always stock car racing, or chasing your kids around the mobile home with a belt, or beating your wife, right?
I don't know how far he lives from the Rockies, but he might have a little different view when the wolves chow down on his dog or cat. I would imagine that he does know that 5000 wolves are not going to stay in the northern Rockies.
I am assuming you are a vegetarion. Eating meat is not murder, it's natural. Humans evolved as omnivores. Eating a balance between meat and plants is natural and healthy. Humans have been hunting longer than we have been farming. Your soybean fields have resulted in a hell of a lot of rainforests being cleared away in Brazil, so you can save the murder crap for yourself.
Go smoke some more pot. The murderous drug runners in Mexico need more money.
And if you don't think eating vegetables isn't KILLING, your WRONG.
Marion, you always ask where wolf advocates live. Where do you live? I've never had the privilege of meeting you. Do you live out in the country on a ranch with several hundred head of cattle, some horses and a couple of border collies, as I've always pictured? Or do you live in town as someone suggested? If the latter, then I doubt that you deal much with wolves either. If the former, how many animals have you personally lost?
I DO live in the country near Livingston, Mt. I HAVE had wolves on my land, and this year have been honored by a wolf pack that has denned in the hills behind my house, about 3/4 mile away. My son, who is a wildlife photographer, and I have spent many days up there with scopes watching them. I have two dogs and a cat. I worry about wolves getting them. I also worry about coyotes, bears, badgers, the neighbors ranch dog etc., etc. That's why I don't let them roam the hills on their own, or even with me as long as that den is there. There are a lot of places in this country where I could live that I would not have to worry about wildlife, because the wildlife is gone, or nearly gone. I choose to live here, and if keeping an eye on my animals is part of this price I pay, it's worth it.
"Adam, call the brand inspector if there are cattle on your land. They will impound them.".......I don't know what the laws are in Wyoming, but Montana is "open range". This means that if a landowner does not want cattle on his (her) land they need to erect a fence to keep them off. Otherwise private property means nothing. It is part of the open range. "People and private property are of no consequence...."..........Marion's words.
Every year, when my neighbor moved his cattle, my garden got trampled (as cowboys rode by shrugging their shoulders, and telling me how "sorry" they were, and how much they "tried" to keep them out of my garden) until I finally put up a fence.
My neighbor, BTW, hasn't lost an animal to wolves in several years, despite the fact that they are around. As long as they stay away from his cows, he has no problem with them denning in the hills (though he is keeping an eye open, as he puts it). Sounds like a reasonable, "happy medium", to me.
That is EXACTLY what I am talking about. We can live among the Wildlife, and enjoy it. The key word there is AMONG. If, for some reason, people don't enjoy living AMONG the wildlife then I suggest you pack up what you want and take it with you. The Wildlife is in need of what little habitat it has left. People are spending millions of their own dollars to ensure that the wildlife CAN continue to inhabit. It doesn't take much to earn the RESPECT of the wildlife, and you don't have to eliminate every 'predator' you see to get that respect. What ever happened to good old COMMON SENSE?
Why should Ranchers, be allowed full access of Public lands, and the native wildlife species NOT be allowed to inhabit those lands? If Rancher's can't handle the amount of livestock they have, then down-size. Quit spreading beyond your means. "Ranchers" expect the wildlife to know their boundaries, the Rancher should know his.
I do not believe that open range law allows one to knowingly graze his cattle on another person's property. As you well know the quote you attributed to me was expressed as the feeling or lack there of that environmentalists have for the victims of heir grand schemes. Ranch families have lost thousands in uncompensated kills, but it is called inconsequential, and I am sure it is to those who are getting what they want at someone else's cost.
I do not own livestock, but yes, I have lost animals to predators, sheep in my case. It is pretty traumatic to raise an animal on a bottle and love and pet them into adult hood to find them torn to shreds, it is even worse to find them torn apart and their guts hanging on the ground and knowing you have to put them out of their misery.
I will have to see more than a few more trees (if there really are) to believe in any good from the wolves, well maybe to the egos of them forcing them onto us....at our cost of course.
Again, the general public cannot possibly handle the responsibility of population control of another specie -especially when it comes at the end of the barrel of a gun. I mean look at our own problems and how many babies people are spitting out these days - the only population problem is the human population. Ever heard of birth control - or for that matter responsible living - maybe one child or none? Our planet and its many species cannot handle it. I love how the "rules" of how many #'s of a specie is ok just don't apply to human beings. Oh well, we will all suffer for it down the line.
It's ok that there are 2.7 million people in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming combined, but 1200 wolves is too many? 300 is a healthy count? A 75% reduction to the population? Ok, by that count just over 2 million humans should be snuffed out...to you know...control the population. Tell me how this way of thinking makes any positive changes? Anyhow, just some thougts to add to the others...oh, but before I go...
Marion: This earth is an amazing, sacred and not fully understood place. Many human beings have taken a look at their surroundings and do not truly grasped what lay before them or the fortune (not in $$) it brings . I think that you are one of these people. You choose to see what is before you and mandate your (and perhaps your neighbor's) opinion of importance across the landscape. You claim that those who support wolves lives are selfish - I have never heard more selfish comments than those that have come from you over many months of blogging. I don't want to argue with you, I only feel that you should consider the bigger picture...perhaps the "world" picture. Consider this quote by George Eliot about haste in our lives...
The golden moments in the stream of life rush past us, and we see nothing but sand; the angels come to visit us, and we only know them when they are gone.
Are you saying that wolf populations should be unlimited, but human populations should be limited by whatever means the majority decides, I believe millions of abortions occur every year, are you saddened by those?
Actually I see the beauty in the earth without having to change it to suit my vision. And I do have to admit to having no desire to watch animals torn apart and being eaten while alive if that is the beauty of which you speak, and I would not see the beauty of it. I do know that there are many, many more wolves in Yellowstone now than ever existed in recorded history. In fact there are more now than were killed total over a 42 year period.
There are a half million folks in my state, we are expected to pay for all of the wolves the whole country or for that matter the whole world want us to have, how much of that cost are you willing to bear? Every one of us requires money to survive in this day and age, even if others have to pay it for us. I don't know what you do to earn yours, I do know ranchers work to provide food for us, even if you want to feed that food to wolves, at their expense part of the time.
Are you saddened by the thousands of elk that have been killed? By the hundreds of head of animals owned and sometimes loved by humans that wolves have killed, or do you only care for wolves?
There is no question about that. I don't know if you remember, but I used to raise sheep. Had them for years. I finally got rid of them because they were too much trouble and I didn't feel that it was an appropriate use of my land (personal choice). Now I garden (the bunnies get most of it!) and grow apples (I sell what the deer don't eat!)
When ranchers claim a personal attachment to a cow I just don't buy it. In a few months they have no problem sending it off to slaughter. But when you raise sheep (for wool, not for mutton) as I did, I know how you can get attached. When I lost an animal or two to a bear (once) or dogs (a couple of times), I was upset, but I had no desire to hunt down and kill every bear or dog in the countryside. When the deer get inside my fence and eat more than their share of apples, I think of the quote from "Jaws" and alter it slightly, "Gonna need a bigger FENCE!" I don't run down to the river and start shooting every deer that I see munching cottonwood sprouts.
I guess that's my point. Occasionally an individual wolf or pack of wolves preys on livestock. Why must we demonize the entire species? Why must we have "shoot on sight" in 90% of Wyoming? Why the hatred that is way out of proportion to the damage wolves do? A small percentage of wolves (just as a small percentage of bears, mountain lions etc.) get into trouble. Why must they all suffer? Some teenagers shoplift. Shall we just throw all teenagers into jail? Bears, cougars, coyotes and domestic dogs all kill more livestock than wolves, yet never have we seen a vendetta against them that anywhere approaches that against wolves. Down through history wolves have been persecuted like no other animal. They have been poisoned, shot, burned alive, hung to death in the town square. Pups have been torched in the den, forced to swallow barbed wire, left to stave to death after their parents were killed. The Catholic Church decreed that wolves were "demon dogs", evidence of the devil on earth. Medieval fables made them almost supernatural apparitions of evil intent to eat "grandma". No crime deserved this. Most of these animals committed no crime at all. All they wanted was to live out their lives, raise their young and stay out of trouble. Just like most of us.
Rhiana: Think we've "overgrazed" our habitat do you?
As for your <#725 per year, that is less than one uncompensated cow that a family is forced to donate to the wolves unwillingly. I looked up DOW figures once, and the first year they paid jsut over $100,000, they took in 21 million tax free dollars! Since Bangs figued that ranchers lost 7-9 animals for every one compensated, that means private families had to pay another 700,000 to 900,000 to provide wolves for you.
I didn't know about your sheep, have you mentioned them before or do I know you? I do know a Wyoming rancher lost 31 sheep in a small enclosed pasture at once time, 1 was confimed, 4 or 5 were probable (half price), the rest were his loss becaue they couldn't "confirm" it was the wolves that killed them too.
http://wolfcrossing.org/2007/03/19/elk-sport-killed-by-wolves-hunters-and-game-lovers-special-report/
Public lands ranchers drop 200 head into the forest, come back in two months, can only find 160, and scream, "The wolves got 40 head!" when they have no idea what happened to them. Kind of like me taking all of my possessions down to the mall, leaving them strewn around the parking lot for a couple of months, and expecting them to be there when I come back; and, if not, expecting someone to compensate me.
All of which doesn't answer my question. Why the total, complete, absolute hatred; not for the individual animal or animals that killed your cow or sheep or dog, but for the entire species. I disagree, I believe that the Big Bad Wolf is ingrained deeply. The ranchers of today (not all, I don't want to lump)...sat as children at dinner tables where grandfathers or uncles or fathers passed down horror stories about how great granddad nearly got driven out of business, or nearly starved, because of wolves (back when great granddad only had ten or twenty head) and how all was saved when the feds put the bounty on the wolves. Just as good as reading them little red riding hood every night.
There are 145,000 elk in Montana, 90,000 in Wyoming. If you can't find one to feed your family, you should talk to Fish and Game. They think that there are too many and we are over management goals for all but a few isolated herds. Even the much discussed Northern Yellowstone herd is over goal as far as Montana is concerned.
I know it wasn't because of wolves but still. Compensation is compensation.
I have to agree with YOU Frank on the Mall scenario. But people like Marion, loose half their herd when one dies. You have to understand they aren't capable of watching two animals let alone a herd of them. Those are the kinds of people that want to kill everything that 'might' be a threat. Who cares if you have proof of something else doing it. Evidence doesn't lie, unless it's against you.
Remember the ones that want to control and can't, kill what they can't control.
Please remember we didn't ask for the wolves to be brought in, wwe didn't want wolves planted here, but we have them, now we have to manage them the best we can. I have said before the wolves hould have been given to those who wanted them, not forced on those who didn't, then everyone would be happy now.
Well, as I suggested previously that is selfish! And you think I only care for the wolf...you only care to destroy it. I do think about the different factors, ranching, domestic animal loss, and elk numbers. But I, unlike you, would like to find a middle ground if one can exist.
You missed my suggestion completely - you have yet again gone off on the ranchers and THEIR rights and THEIR animals and THEIR losses and THEIR work ethic. When I began my comment above I was expressing my sadness at the unnecessary killings that have occurred since delisting. Why do you choose to only focus on the ranchers who feel they are justified in killing? Why did you not see that I was also speaking about those out there who are poaching in Idaho's case - and baseless, yet legal murdering in Wyoming? I was attempting to make a point that the general public cannot be trusted to treat this delisting or future hunting responsibly. Those who have killed already prove that point by their actions.
So, to answer your questions above - wolf numbers should be realistic for a healthy population today and future genetic strength tomorrow - we have millions of acres between our three states that can sustain a population well above the 2000 you claim are out there now. My point about human population is that if you can place a number on the wolves, than you should be placing one on the most out of control breeders out there - human beings. And am I saddened about abortions? Not only is it not by business, but abortion and the slaughter of wolves has no place in a conversation together.
As far as how and what the wolf eats, it is called nature and no it is not pretty and is not meant to leave you feeling warm and fuzzy. They hunt and feed dictated by instinct. I suppose how we humans slaughter our cattle is ok though. Is it not bloody, full of carnage, and in many places very ugly? Oh sigh...you just don't care though when it comes to what humans do. We can do no wrong in your eyes. Oh, wait we can be dreadful “enviros” full of malicious intent towards ranchers. Give me a break…your eyes are closed and you don’t want to see, that is the sad part.
You also asked if the people in your state have to pay for all of the wolves – no actually that is the entire US public paying into a tax system that delegates the funds to many, many areas. Most notably a misguided war overseas – am I expected to pay to rebuild Iraq? I guess I am. I don’t like where all of my tax dollars go, but if I am that disturbed by it, I talk to the people I vote into office. Don’t act as though you have to write a personal check to anyone to keep wildlife policies active.
And your last question – am I sad about the “thousands” of elk that have been killed? You mean the thousands that are killed every hunting season by both ethical and non-ethical hunters every year? Oh yes, that does sadden me – as does the thousands hit by vehicles on our highways and byways – at least the wolf is taking an elk for sustenance – it is not unnatural or malicious – it is called surviving.
I don’t know why I engage you…it is just so unnerving to read your comments sometimes and I am beginning to suspect you are like the sibling who just says outlandish things they don’t really believe to get a rise out of people – or could it be you will never believe the suns sets in the West…?
As you can see Rhiana you equated controlling human populations with controlling wolf populations. Abortiaon is a part of controlling human population like it or not.
When the wolves were forced on us, we were supposed to have 300, now you want 10 times that and total control over them and us by extention.
The wolves were running free, essentially without human interference in Canada, when they were loaded up and brought to live among people. I do consider that selfish, if you wanted them to live without control they should have been left where they were. We didn't want them preying on our livestock nor wild game, you did, so we were forced to take them.
The family that takes an elk is often taking it for survival too, I know my sons are happy for game to feed thier famileis with ever increasing food prices.
I watch the sun come up in the east every morning and watch it go down in the west. You seem to want to force your wishes on other folks and then refuse to hear a single word against it. We may not have been able to prevent the wolf dump, but we do have freedom of speech.
I focus on the ranchers because they are the ones paying the big cost, every extra hand they hire to try to help portect their property is money out of the family budget, every uncompensated kill is money out of the family budget. Time spent burying killed animals is time spent that cannot be used to protect other animals. I do not know of a single wolf proponent helping to bury cows or horse or 20-30 head of sheep when it is zero out or when it is 95 degrees out. That is the ranchers problem, and you call him selfish if he objects?
Both of you, your posts are very disturbing. Sorry that there are people in Maine living on their own property in a way that doesn't conform to your yuppie rural fantasies, Starman. Wow, what arrogance. You sure don't sound like someone who "comes in peace" with your "enlightened thought." Maybe your condescension prevents people from seeing your good intentions?
You'd be a big fan of the Third Reich's "lebensraum" policies, evidently. Look it up, smart guy.
And Mick, you sound like a not-so-closeted totalitarian. Maybe when you grow up a little, you'll stop seeing the world in such absolutist terms.
In the meantime (if you're going to be bossy, so can I), I sentence you to read the complete works of Hannah Arendt, along with Karl Popper's "The Open Society and Its Enemies."
If you can't find these through Amazon, stop by my place. The bookshelf is right next to the gun safe.
The wolves were not forced on us (us being Americans). They were taken from us, along with Bison, by our forebearers who thought they were doing us a favor. They were wrong. What is being forced on us are more humans than we know what to do with. People that have more than two kids are forcing more traffic, more crime, more pollution, and a lowered quality of life on all of us. I am greatful that abortion is legal here. If it were not, we would probably not have any room for wolves, bison, bears,deer, hunting, National Parks, or any of the other things that make this country beautiful.
Mike, when I referred to the deity of wolves, I was referring to those who try to make them God like."
And this from a person who's God of Gods is the cow.
Does the facility know you have escaped again?
Listen, there is a time and place for wolf management, but that time is not now. As of a current census Minnesota has 3,020 wolves less square mileage of wilderness and more people than Idaho, Montana, or Wyoming. Biologists estimate Idaho alone can support 5,000 wolves without any big game depletion or negative environmental effects. Elk mortality by wolves is about 7%. Wolves account for less than 1% of cattle losses in any of the three states mentioned above. Wolf "Management" or wolf hunting is a result of ignorance and fear. There is no reason for wolf management at this point. Just out of curiosity have YOU lost any livestock to wolves. Because it sounds like you live in wolf country would you be kind enough to specify where. Would you also stop calling them "Canadian wolves". Wolves are lucky to live 10 years in the wild so all those wolves are long gone. All that are left are their American offspring. Besides they were the same sub-species that lived in this area before they were wiped out: Canis lupus irremotus not Canadian wolves.
Can you explain to me why 300 was the original amount of wolves called for in the reintroduction plan if that was not scientifically enough? Was it a bald faced lie to get them into the country? If so is there any truth in any of the wants?
I call the wolves Canadian wolves because that is their genetic make up, that is where they were imported from. You are the only person I have ever heard who tried to claim these wolves were the Canis lupus Irremotus, they are not. Those wolves were considered extinct, which means no known species lives anywhere, including Canada. There are a lot of folks including myself that think the wolf that was killed jsut outside of Yellowstone jsut prior to the introduction was a remnant of Irremotus, because I have been told his DNA did not match any known DNA. Now whether that was true or they jsut said that to keep from having the introduction stopped I don't know. There was another wolf photographed inside of Yellowstone eat an elk carcass just prior to the introduction also.
As for elk only being reduced by 7%, are you talking about total since the beginning or each year? Neither makes sense, the wolf numbers have increased by 20% per year even with the FWS kills, so the elk kills would increase by about the same. The northern elk herd has dropped from 19,000 they year before the wolves were brought in to 6000 this year. No math I was ever taught makes that 7% unless you mean x 10 years equaling 70%, that is close. The Teton moose herd is down by more than 50%.
No I'm not a stalker if that is what you are implying. I don't care which high rise apartment you live in. I just want to know which state to be sure you live in a state and area with wolves. As for Canis lupus irremotus being extinct which tabloid did you read that one from, "The National Redneck" or the "Ignorant Chronicle". Judging by your previous comments I just want to make sure you know that genes are not pants and genetic make up has nothing to do with facial products. I never said that the elk herds haven't dropped I just said it wasn't the wolves. Biologists have blamed the decrease in the elk numbers on harsh winters. Out of all the elk that are killed each year wolves account for 7% of that. What do you mean "no math you were ever taught" I didn't think rednecks could red much less do arithmetic. Interesting numbers by the way. Did you make up those numbers yourself or did you pay someone with an 8th grade education to say that. What I'm trying to ask is where is your sources? Here is a fraction of mine.
Source: Smith, D.W., R.O. Petersen, and D.B. Houston. 2003. Yellowstone after Wolves. Bioscience 53 (4): 330 340. Ripple, W.J., and R.L. Beschta. 2004. Wolves, elk, willows, and trophic cascades in the upper Gallatin range of southwestern Montana, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 200: 161181. Crabtree R.L., and J.W. Sheldon. 1999. Coyotes and canid coexistence. Pp 127163 in Clark TW, Curlee AP, Minta SC, Kareiva PM, eds. Carnivores in Ecosystems: The Yellowstone Experience. New Haven (CT): Yale University Press.
Source: Lukens, Jim. "Idaho, eleven years with wolves what we've learned." News release, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, April 25, 2006.
Source: Wright, Peterson, Smith and Lemke. August 2006. The Journal of Wildlife Management 70 (4).
Article: "Wolves & Elk: The overriding issue in delisting" - Rocky Barker, Idaho Statesman April 21, 2007.
Source: Idaho Fish and Game PDF File.
Steve Nadeau, Statewide Large Carnivore Manager, Idaho Fish and Game, 600 S. Walnut, Boise, ID 83707.
Mech, L.D. and L. Boitani, editors. 2003. Wolves: behavior, ecology and conservation. University of Chicago Press. Wandering Wolf Inspires Project, 5/23/2006 New York Times.
check the website above for sub-species!
Canis lupus columbianus (British Columbian Wolf)
British Columbia, Canada. It is among the largest of the wolves. This animal can weigh as much as 140 pounds. This wolf's color is generally either gray or black, the blacks being the largest of the two. This is the wolf that was forced on us!
Canis lupus irremotus (Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf)
Medium to large light-colored animal. The original range of this animal included the northern Rocky Mountains including southern Alberta, Canada. In the United States it is considered extinct. Recent reports of a few wolves in Glacier National Park, Montana may indeed be wolves of this subspecies.
These are the wolves I used to see before the "reintroduction", This was a 60-80 pound wolf, shy and seldom seen by anyone, but often heard in their range, these guys were limited , and may now be gone for good, due to the "reintroduction". They just cannot compete with animals twice their size, and have most likely all been killed by the big ones.
I , like many Idaho "rednecks", ued to enjoy their company in the wilderness.
I am all for wolves in the wilderness (even though that's getting smaller because of the urban sprawl) But I will protect my livestock only IF I see a wolf harassing them. Then I wouldn't necessarily KILL the wolf. (I would be more apt to kill some neighbors dog {usually I will warn the dog owner one time} for harassing because the HUMAN is at fault and if they won't do something about their animal I WILL) Most Livestock producers, and those that 'think' they are livestock producers, don't seem to realize these animals are a LOT smarter than given credit. A few shots in their direction, and the wolf will learn it's easier to hunt than go to the 'drive-up'. I guess maybe I was brought up different than most. For one thing when you live in the country, you should accept all that is there. If you don't like the wildlife. Then get the hell out. Our wildlife are losing their homes. If you aren't able to take care of your own then get rid of it. Quit trying to eliminate everything because it MIGHT do something to what you have intruded on their 'turf' with.
There are two wolf dens within 50 square miles of me, (one less than a mile)and I have YET to see the animal itself. Even when the cattle were here we didn't have a wolf problem AT ALL. But we did have a people problem.
The sooner humans realize that THEY are the problem, instead of the animal the sooner humans can learn to co-exist instead of be 'GOD'.
I not only have wolves in my 'neighborhood' I have mountain lions, Grizzlies, coyotes, Bison, Elk-a-plenty, and more moose, in the last 10 years than have been seen in years. I have NEVER had a problem with any of those bothering anything I have. Although in the 70's we did have a rogue Grizzly that was killing cattle for the sake of killing. That bear is now on our wall. Oh ya one time we had a grizzly that liked the Amareto my mother had stored in an old wooden ice-box on the porch. That Sow really LOVED that stuff but it was a tad expensive to supply to her. So we MOVED the ice-box, thus no more 'drunk'bears.
Don't get me wrong if I HAD to I would kill a wolf, but only as a last resort. And ONLY if I know it is the one that did the dirty deed. There IS a happy medium.
Our sources tell us different things so for the sake of argument lets go with your source. If you used to see these wolves before the reintroduction and "enjoy their company" then how come they had to reintroduce new wolves? Oh thats right because there wasn't a stable population of wolves and the ecosystem was falling apart. Sure there were a lot of elk, but there is more to a wilderness than just elk. Even in the elk herds disease was ramped. When the wolves were brought in the ecosystem started to make a come back (see above sources). Even if the wolves are of a different sub-species they and I quote "The wolves that currently inhabit Canada once historically inhabited the central and western United States, live in similar habitat and rely on the same food source. Since wolves were exterminated in the western region of the lower 48, capturing animals from Canada as a source population was actually
the ideal match". They have the same habits and family structure the only difference as you pointed out was size. They are still gray wolves. There population in Idaho as I have proven above is not stable nor substantial enough to go through a hunting season. I didn't call every Idahoan a redneck. I live in Idaho and I don't consider many people rednecks. I called Marion a redneck, but I don't really think she minds any more than I do when I'm called an environmentalist, hippy, granola eating wolf lover. Its a complement when I'm called that.
Eliminate cattle
Provide easily accessible wolf viewing for folks that did not want to make the trip to Canadian or Alaskan wilderness.
Eliminate elk, and thereby eliminate hunting.
A need to control the lives of other people, that is really evident now that we have many times the number of wolves originally planned for, enviros must have more and more.
Remember ranchers and the rest of the residents did not move into wolf territory, the environmentalists brought to wolves to live in our territory.....and they lied about how many they wanted, no one would ever have agreed to 1500-2000 wolves as we now have, much less many times that. I am sure if they are successful in stopping the delisting to 3000, they will immediately be in court again for 6000.
Remember the wolves lived in the wilderness unmolested until they were hauled into ranch country where they were certain to get into trouble.
how pathetic is that. And you not even being a Cattle person.
You need to get out of the 'poor rancher' syndrome. People like you turn even Rancher's against ranching. You make the Cattle Rancher seem like a dumb idiot. You are the ONLY person I've heard (or seen) say that wolves were brought in to eliminate cattle. I'm really beginning to worry about your sanity. You are worse than any 'tree-hugger' I've ever seen, and I've seen PLENTY of foolish 'tree-huggers'.
Cattle do more destruction to the land than all the other species put together EXCEPT the domestic SHEEP. WHY? Because they are fenced in. You want to fence in all the wildlife, so they can destroy the landscape too then you would really have a reason to bitch. Just like you want every Bison on the landscape destroyed. You need to pull the Wool off your eyes.
The wolves were not brought into cattle country. The cattle were brought into wolf country, and the wolves were extirpated from their own country to make room for cattle. Get it straight and quit spinning things.
The fact remains wolves are a wilderness animal and it was cruel to bring them to human abitation, I don't care how much you might enjoy having easy access to them.
Most wolves never see a human being, except the one who shoots it, darts it, puts a radio collar on it or messes with it some other way...and would probably like to keep it that way.
The cruelty is man's undying, never ending hatred.
Were you born this ignorant or did you have to take lessons. You haven't listened to any of the facts. THE FACTS ARE wolves account for less than 1% of cattle or sheep losses in any of the three states. Out of all the elk that die wolves are only responsible for 7% in the three states. Besides elk isn't there only prey. In the northern Panhandle of Idaho rabbits are their main source of food. The facts are that ungulate populations are relatively unaffected by wolves source: Idaho Fish and Game PDF File, Lukens, Jim. "Idaho, eleven years with wolves what we've learned." News release, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, April 25, 2006, and Wright, Peterson, Smith and Lemke. August 2006. The Journal of Wildlife Management 70 (4).
Article: "Wolves & Elk: The overriding issue in delisting" - Rocky Barker, Idaho Statesman April 21, 2007. You the most paranoid person I've met. The wolves were brought back to return balance to the ecosystem, which they have done. Your fear and ignorance blinds you to the truth.
how could you let the wolf eat something like that. It would surely wipe the wolf out from indigestion, or some other painful problem. I don't think wolves like to eat Sh*t any more than you or I would. :o)
The cruelty is man's undying, never ending hatred."end quote
Thsi is very true, and so why the hysteria over a few dead wolves? As you just said, there are lots more, probably more than we can ever know. Hunting will make them more reclusive, they are too tame. It is absolutely necessary that rancher be able to kill wolves in their pastures, and not have to try to prove the unprovable when wolves have eaten the carcass down to the bones so there is not the defining extreme trauma.
You are right about the population and the large environmental groups have higher membership than the population of the states they want to control. Most of those people do not realize how many tens of thousands of wolves actually exist in this country. It was a matter of putting the wolves where they wanted them, would suggest that in actual fact the exact same wolves left alone in their wilderness home in Canada far from humans, choppers, collars, etc would actually have increased faster without the mandatory kills by FWS.
I see you are still spouting your unproved, undocumented, unresearched, non sourced, always proven wrong twaddle still.
Also - on the bike issue - in the other posts/article; YOU have lost that one BIG TIME!! The majority is against YOU!
The only numbers that are over exaggerated are the number of livestock lost to wolves. The evidence is clear and repeating myself a million times to get the facts through your thick redneck skull. Wolves are for the benefit of the entire wilderness so stop letting your fear guide your ignorance. As far as ranchers being able to kill wolves in their pastures that is bull sh*t. If the wolves are attacking your livestock than yes you have the right to kill the wolves to defend your income, but if the wolves are just in the pastures you do not have the right to take its life. Near Stanley Idaho wolves frequently go into the pastures, but no livestock have been lost. Residents have even seen elk and cattle next to each other and when the wolves come they avoid the cattle and go after their natural prey. Stop trying to eradicate an animal that has not only doing good, but was also here first. Ignorance like yours blinds people into needless fear causing needless death and destruction.
Don't you and your followers perceive religious undertones from others - and YES, you have put that into your posts; don't try to deny it!!
But let's look at my feelings toward various lifeforms: humans, wolves, grizzlies, cows and so forth: I look at all lifeforms as I encounter them; so which have: insulted me, threatened me with weapons, threatened my no impact livelihood, overrun my local hills with loud/stinking machines (now a year round problem), lied at public hearings, vandalized public property (the land itself) and MORE!!
Take a wild guess, which of these lifeforms is the most dangerous
to people who want a QUIET healthy encounter with the REAL world??
Try going beyond your perceptions and get the REAL facts, numbers and truths. You think you are entitled because of your past - outside of all the complaining I see you do; what do you for this world TODAY!! "I" challenge students and run a business that connects youth with the REAL world and helps them learn to meet the challenges as our ancestors did - before your kind started to destroy what you feared!!
Every time I see one of your posts, it reminds me of the old Greek adage; "Against Stupidity - even the gods fight a lost cause!!
Ignorance can be curred, but stupidity is permanent. I've been trying to cure you, so your not ignorant. Guess what the only other choice your left with?
Matt - thanks for being part of the club!!
Ann - I kinda agree with your statement, but something tells me your intent is messed up!
Just because you have a so called "honest" profession, it DOESN'T give you any more Credibility!! The Gov. of IL has an Honest profession - elected by the People; but he has perverted the job and HIS credibility is CRAP !! The facts in B&W;- I DO have them and I know how to read and interpret them to represent the REAL facts - not facts created by Farm Journals - which I read in contrast to US Fish/Wildlife qualified reports/studies!! Some of the facts I don't agree with - I await further data, but I too TEACH : Youth Camps, Camp Staffers, Scouts and the University.
Here in WY we have wolves -we also have: deer, elk, moose, mtn. sheep, bison, ect. and some of these species are flourishing and spreading throughout the State - thanks TOO the wolves!
Oh - by the way; my family's farm and ranch hasn't lost ANY livestock to any predators in 2 generations; WE work hard to NOT let our livestock "Just" wander all over Public Land - then Hope all turns out O.K.!! WE have had to - regrettably - occasionally shot a coyote that has gone bad,but only as a last resort!! Responsible ranching IS very hard work, but can be done.